Literature DB >> 10645180

How long should patients be followed-up after total hip replacement? Current practice in the UK.

M J Bankes1, R Coull, B D Ferris.   

Abstract

Some 1000 postcard questionnaires were sent to Fellows of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) to establish current follow-up practice of primary total hip replacement (THR) patients. For cemented THRs, 50% of surgeons saw their patients for under 1 year, 78% under 5 years with indefinite follow-up being performed by 14%. There was significantly more follow-up of uncemented and hybrid prostheses with the proportions being 25%, 56% and 30% respectively (chi 2, P < 0.0001). This study has revealed a wide variation in practice between individual surgeons and has shown over one-third of surgeons feel they are prevented from performing as much follow-up as they would wish by the availability of clinic resources. Higher follow-up rates of uncemented components may reflect a lack of confidence in their long-term performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10645180      PMCID: PMC2503293     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  23 in total

1.  Porous-coated acetabular components with screw fixation. Five to ten-year results.

Authors:  H A Latimer; P F Lachiewicz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  The total cost of hip-joint replacement; a model for purchasers.

Authors:  P B Pynsent; S R Carter; C J Bulstrode
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1996-06

3.  Joint responsibility: the need for a national arthroplasty register.

Authors:  D H Sochart; A J Long; M L Porter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-13

4.  Current techniques in total knee replacement: results of a national survey.

Authors:  A M Phillips; N J Goddard; J E Tomlinson
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Prediction of clinical outcome of THR from migration measurements on standard radiographs. A study of cemented Charnley and Stanmore femoral stems.

Authors:  P S Walker; S F Mai; A G Cobb; G Bentley; J Hua
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1995-09

6.  Cemented revision for aseptic acetabular loosening. A review of 387 hips.

Authors:  V V Raut; P D Siney; B M Wroblewski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1995-05

7.  Early migration and late aseptic failure of proximal femoral prostheses.

Authors:  M A Freeman; P Plante-Bordeneuve
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1994-05

8.  Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990.

Authors:  H Malchau; P Herberts; L Ahnfelt
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1993-10

9.  Unpredictable progression of osteolysis following cementless hip arthroplasty. 24 femoral components followed for 6-10 years.

Authors:  I D Learmonth; J G Hussell; G P Grobler
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1996-06

10.  Cemented Charnley revision arthroplasty for severe femoral osteolysis.

Authors:  V V Raut; P D Siney; B M Wroblewski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1995-05
View more
  2 in total

1.  Can patients help with long-term total knee arthroplasty surveillance? Comparison of the American Knee Society Score self-report and surgeon assessment.

Authors:  T J Gioe; D Pomeroy; K Suthers; J A Singh
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 7.580

2.  How often is the office visit needed? Predicting total knee arthroplasty revision risk using pain/function scores.

Authors:  Charles D Hightower; Lisa S Hightower; Penny J Tatman; Patrick M Morgan; Terence Gioe; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 2.655

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.